Sorry my e-mail on this topic got out before it was meant to.
I insert/correct the references etc
> containers test0004 involves the fourth expansion of the property element
> production rule 6.12.
[6.12] propertyElt ::= [ omit ]
| '<' propName idRefAttr? bagIdAttr? propAttr* '/>'
> By the decision to drop all the special container rules, this expnasion
then
> applies to rdf:li. By paragraph 232 (which is so horrible its number!)
this
> fourth expansion is different from the others, in that it does not reify,
> but the ID is the ID of the resource.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#232
> in my opinion para 232 is an error, and is addressed in the unresolved
issue
> FFFFFF
No, it isn't. None of the issues would allow us to drop para 232 if we
wanted to. We would need to start a new issue first.
> I did some archaelogy on this one, and as far as I could tell, this
> paragraph dates from the early days before the first working group
resolves
> issues 4, 7 ,11 and they still had a certain amount of confusion about
> referring to a resource and referring to the description of the resource.
I
> think it is a hard call whether to delete paragraph 232 or preserve it for
> the sake of backwards compatibility.
I have probably got those issues numbers wrong, and need to go over the
member archives to get the references. I will do that early september if
there is interest.
Dan Connolly wrote:
> > I guess my implementation will raise a "not supported"
> > exception in that case; I don't see sufficient value
> > to implement this.
> test0005 is also difficult for some parser writers (e.g. me). It is fine
if
> you really are using an XSLT transform to process rdf:li, but if you're
not
> you need some fairly horrid special code for processing a corner case that
> nobody in their right mind would rely on. ARP does it, but I personally am
> very sympathetic to a not supported exception.
Jeremy